Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016 


https://archive.org/details/addressesatmeetiOOamer 


IMPORTANT. 


Z o 

Vtt\3 


The  New  Register  of  the  Institute  is  now  in  Press. 

TITLE-PAGE  AND  NAMES  OF  COUNCILORS  WILL  BE  AS 
SHOWN  ON  THE  FOLLOWING  PAGES,  WITH  THE  EXCEP- 
TION THAT  NAMES  WILL  BE  ARRANGED  ALPHABETICALLY. 

THE  NAME  OF  EVERY  COUNCILOR  SHOULD 
APPEAR  IN  THIS  PUBLICATION. 

COUNCILORS  WHO  HAVE  NOT  FURNISHED  THE 
NECESSARY  INFORMATION  ARE  REQUESTED 
TO  DO  SO  AT  ONCE. 

A blank  form  will  be  furnished  for  the  purpose,  upon  application, 
addressed  to 

AMERICAN  INSTITUTE  OF  CIVICS, 

177  Broadway, 

New  York. 


NATIONAL  CORPS  OF  LECTURERS 


AND 

FACULTY  ASSOCIATES  IN  HIGHER  INSTITUTIONS 

OF  LEARNING. 


Councilors  of  the  Institute  who  are  willing  to  accept 
invitations  to  deliver  occasional  addresses  on  subjects 
related  to  Civics  (affairs  of  government,  citizenship,  etc.), 
and  who  are  not  now  enrolled  as  members  of  its  Corps 
of  Lecturers,  and  members  of  faculties  in  higher  institu- 
tions of  learning  who  are  willing  to  co-operate  with  the 
Institute  in  its  general  activities,  are  invited  to  send 
information  to  this  effect  at  once,  in  order  that  their 
names  may  be  properly  presented  in  the  new  Register. 

Address 

AMERICAN  INSTITUTE  OF  CIVICS, 

177  Broadway, 

New  York. 


[SPECIMEN  PAGE,  NEW  REGISTER.] 


AMERICAN  INSTITUTE  OE  CIVICS. 


REGISTER 


OF  ITS 

NATIONAL  BODY  OF  COUNCILORS, 

INCLUDING 

FACULTY  ASSOCIATES  IN  HIGHER  INSTITUTIONS 

OF  LEARNING 


NATIONAL  CORPS  OF  LECTURERS. 


A.  D.  1900. 


PUBLISHED  BY 

THE  AMERICAN  INSTITUTE  OF  CIVICS. 

NEW  YORK. 


[over.] 


[SPECIMEN  PAGE,  NEW  REGISTER.] 

COUNCILORS  AMERICAN  INSTITUTE  OF  CIVICS. 


Foster,  Capt.  Herbert  Sidney.  U.  S.  In- 

fantry. Manila,  P.  I.;  Prof.  Milit.  Sc.,  etc.,  Univ. 

Vt.,  1890-8.  Commander  Vt.  Div.  S.  of  V., 
1891-2;  Memb.  S.  A.  R.,  S.  V.,  M.  O.  L.  L.,  Soc. 
Army  of  Santiago  de  Cuba.  B.  Calais,  Vt.,  Aug. 

8,  1858. 

Sanford,  Fernando.  Prof.  Physics,  Leland 

Stanford  Univ.,  Cal.  Memb.  Soc.  Am.  Wars. 

B.  Taylor,  111.,  1854. 

Thompson,  Hon.  Hugh  Smith.  Comptrol- 
ler N.  Y.  Life  Ins.  Co.,  346  B’way,  N.  Y.  City. 
Capt.  C.  S.  A.,  Civ.  War;  late  Supt.  Educ.  and 
Governor  S.  C.;  Ass.  Sec.  U.  S.  Treas.;  Civ. 
Serv.  Com.  U.  S.;  Memb.  S.  R.;  Confed.  Vet. 
Camp;  South.  Soc.;  Ref.  C.;  Century  Ass.,  N. 

Y.,  and  St.  Andrew’s  Soc.,  Charleston,  S.  C., 
where  b.  1836. 

Beaver,  Gen.  James  Addams,  LL.D.  Law, 

Belief onte.  Pa.  U.  S.  Civ.  War,  Lt.  2d  Pa.. 
Lt.-Col.  45th  Pa.,  Col.  148th  Pa.  and  Bvt.  Brig.- 
Gen.  U.  S.  V.;  Gov.  Pa.  1887-91.;  Judge  Super. 

Ct.  Pa.  1895;  Memb.  U.  S.  Com.  on  Conduct 
Spanish  War;  Trust.  Wash.  & Jeff.  Coll., 

Pa.  State  Coll.,  Lincoln  Univ.;  Memb.  S.  R.; 
Milit.  Ord.  L.  L.;  U.  V.  Leg.;  G.  A.  R.;  Soc. 
Army  Potomac  and  West  Va.;  Pa.  German 
Soc.;  U.  L.  Club,  Philad.;  B <s)  n Frat.  B. 
Millerstown,  Pa.,  Oct.  21,  1837. 

* Bonaparte,  Charles  Joseph.  Law,  Balti- 

more, Md.  Overseer  Harvard  Univ.;  Trust. 
Pratt  Free  Library,  Balt.;  Memb.  Nat.  Civ" 
Serv.  Ref.  Ass. ; Balt.  Charity  Org.  Soc. ; Nat' 
Munic.  League,  etc.  B.  Balt.,  Md.,  June 9, 1851" 

Riggs,  Rev.  Thomas  Lawrence.  Supt.  In- 
dian Missions,  Oahu,  S.  D.  B.  Lacquiparle. 
Minn.,  June  3, 1847. 

McConnell,  John  Preston,  A.M.  Chair 

Latin  & Greek,  Milligan  College,  Milligan,  Tenn. 
Memb.  Am.  Acad.  Polit.  & Soc.  Science;  & Am. 

Hist.  Assoc.  B.  Wayland,  Va.,  Feb.  22, 1866. 

* Cruikshank,  James,  LL.D.  206  So.  Oxford 

St.,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.  Princ.  Gram.  Sch.  No.  12,  & 

Eve.  High.  Sch.,  Brooklyn;  Life  Memb.  Fellow, 

& Secy.  Council.  Brooklyn  Inst,  of  Arts  & 
Sciences;  Assoc.  Sup.  Pub.  Schools.  Bklyn., 
1866-72;  Ed.  N.  Y.  Teacher,  1856-58;  Institute 
Lecturer.  B.  Argyle,  N.  Y.,  Aug.  28,  1831. 

Symmes,  Frank  Jameson.  725  Mission  St., 

San  Francisco.  Merchant;  Director  Mer- 
chants’ Assn.;  Ex-Naval  Officer  ; Ex-Pres. 
Harvard  Club;  Memb.  University  Club;  V.- 
P.  Settlement  Assoc.,  San  Francisco;  Also 
Memb.  Naval  Bd.  Visitors,  1899  & Soc.  Am. 
Wars.  B.  Kingston,  Mass.,  June  7, 1847. 

*Comstock, Theodore  Bryant,  Sc. D. Cornell. 

Chicago,  111.,  535  Stimpson  Block.  Mining  En- 

gineer;  Chair  Geology  Cornell  Univ.,  1875-79; 

hair  Mining  Engineering,  Univ.  111.,  1885-89; 
Director  Sch.  of  Mines,  Univ.  of  Arizona,  1891- 
95;  Pres,  do.,  1893-95;  Founder  & Fellow  Geolog. 

Soc.  America;  Memb.  Natl.  Geog.  Soc.,  Fellow 
Am.  Soc.  Adv.  Sc.;  Memb.  Am.  Inst.  M.  E.,  & 
Federated  Inst,  of  Eng.  Societies,  England.  B. 
Cuyahoga  Falls,  N.  Y.,  July  27,  1849. 

Sherman,  Hon.  Elijah  B.,  LL.D.  Chicago, 

111.,  1152  Monadnock  Bldg.  Lawyer  & Master 
in  Chancery  U.  S.  Cir.  Court;  Lt.  Co.  C.  9th 
Vt.  Inf.  Civ.  War;  Lt.-Col.  & Judge  Adv.  1st 
Brig.  N.  G.  111.,  1877-84;  Memb.  111.  Legis 

* Member  National  Corps  of  Lecturers. 


1877-81;  G.  M.  I.  O.  O.  F.  111.  1874;  Memb.  G. 
A.  R.;  LL.;  Vet.  Union;  U.  L.  Club,  Chicago; 
Til.  Bar  Assoc.  & Am.  Bar  Assoc.,  and  National 
Pres.  Delta  Upsilon  Fraternity.  B.  Fairfield,  Vt., 
Jun.  18,  1832. 

Conant,  Hon.  Edward,  A.M.  Princ.  Pub. 

School,  Randolph,  Vt.;  State  Supt.  Education, 
Vt.,  1874-80;  Memb.  Const.  Conv.  Vt.,  1870; 
Delegate  National  Council  Cong.  Churches, 
1865-74-92;  Internat.  Ditto,  1899;  Author  Hist. 
Vt.;  Drill  Book  in  English  Primary  Hist. 
Reader.  B.  Pomfret,  Vt.,  May  10,  1829. 

j-Hamilton,  Rev.W.  E.,  D.D.  Chair  of  Phi- 
losophy & Civics  in  Simpson  College,  Indian- 
ola,  la.  B.  New  Richmond,  O.,  Oct.  9,  1845. 

Jefferson,  John  Percival.  Manufacturer, 

Warren,  Pa.;  Lieutenant  U.  S.  Army  (West 
Point).  B.  Delaware,  O.,  1852. 

Trafton,  William  Henry.  Editor  & Statis- 
tician, 210  W.  83d  St.,  New  York  City,  Memb. 
Produce  Exchange,  Press  Association,  & West 
Side  Repub.  Club,  New  York. 

Breckenridge,  Gen.  Joseph  Cabell.  Wash- 
ington, D.  C.,  War  Dept.  Brig.  Gen.  & In- 
spect. Gen.  U.  S.  A.;  Maj.  Gen.  U.  S.  Vols. 
Span.  Am.  War  Memb.  S.  A.  R.;  L.  L.;  Mil. 
Ord.  Foreign  Wars;  Ord.  Span.  Am.  War; 
Soc.  Army  Cumberland,  & Tenn.;  Trustee  Am. 
Inst.  Civics.  B.  Baltimore,  Md.,  May  14,  1842. 

Spayd,  H.  H.  Minersville,  Pa.  Prin.  Pub. 

Schools;  Color  Bearer  149th  Pa.  Vols.  Civ. 
War;  Licentiate  Eng.  Bap.  Ch.;  Memb.  G.  A. 
R.;  Life  Memb.  Pa.  State  Teachers’  Ass.  & 
Nat.  Ed.  Ass.  B.  Myerstown,  Pa.,  Oct.  26, 1845. 

Kingsbury,  Frederick  John.  Waterbury, 

Ct.,  Banker.  Memb.  Yale  Univ.  Corporation, 
1881, 1900;  Treas.  P.  E.  Diocese  of  Ct?,  & trustee 
various  Educ.  & Charitable  bodies;  Memb. 
Soc.  Col.  Wars;  Ct.  Acad.  Sc.;  Am.  Antiq. 
Soc.;  Am.  Soc.  Sc.  Ass.;  Am.  Hist.  Soc.,  and 
Am.  Archeolog.  Soc.  B.  Waterbury,  Ct. 

f Howard,  Hon.  Walter  E.,  LL.D.  Middle- 

bury.  Vt.,  Lawyer.  Chair  Polit.  Sc.  & Hist., 
Middlebury  College  since  1889.  Ex-Senator 
& Rep.  State  of  Vt.;  Ex.-Memb.  U.  S.  Consular 
Service,  and  Pres.  Vt.  Bd.  Norm.  Sch.  Com- 
missioners. B.  Tunbridge,  Vt.,  May  29, 1849. 

tReed,  Rev.  George  Edward,  S.T.D.,  LL.D’ 

' ‘Carlisle,  Pa.  Pres.  Dickinson  College;  Libra" 
rian  Pa.  State  Library;  Former  pastor  leading 
churches  N.  Y.  E.  Conf.  M.  E.  Ch.  B.  Brown- 
ville,  Me.,  Mch.  28,  1846. 

*Logan,  Walter  Seth.  27  William  St.,  New 

York  City,  Lawyer.  Grad.  Yale  Univ.  1870; 
Memb  Am.  Bar  Ass.,  and  Pres.  N.  Y.  State  Bar 
Ass.;  Memb.  Ord.  Founders  & Patriots;  Colon. 
Wars;  S.  A.  R.;  N.  E.  Soc.;  a liberal  patron 
Arts  & Sciences,  & popular  speaker  on  Hist.  & 
Economical  subjects.  B.  Washington,  Ct., 
Apr.  15,  1847. 

*Crocker,  Hon.  George  Glover,  LL.B. 
(Harv.).  Boston,  Mass.,  19  Milk  St.,  Lawyer. 
Pres.  Mass.  Senate  1883;  Chairman  Mass.  Bd. 
R.  R.  Cornrs.,  1887-92;  Chairman  Boston  Transit 
Commission,  since  1894;  Author  “ Principles 
of  Procedure  in  Delib.  Bodies;”  G.  P.  Putnam’s 
Sons.  B.  Boston,  Dec.  15, 1843. 

t Member  Faculty  Associates.  (over.) 


DIPLOMATIC  SERVICE  AND  ITS  REQUIREMENTS. 


By  Hon.  Geo.  F.  Seward,  former  U.  S.  Minister  to  China. 

There  is  no  diplomatic  service  of  the  United  States.  There  is  a diplomatic 
establishment.  The  Government  appoints  Ministers  from  time  to  time  to  given 
parts.  These  appointments  are  made  from  the  ranks  of  onr  citizenship,  but  not 
from  a body  of  men  constituting  a service. 

The  European  Governments  select  young  men  for  their  diplomatic  services,  as- 
signing them  to  duty  first  in  their  foreign  offices  or  legations  and  promoting  them 
step  by  step  for  merit.  In  other  words,  they  adhere  practically  to  the  methods 
which  we  follow  in  our  Naval  and  Military  services.  Our  plan  permits  each 
President  to  name  whomsoever  he  pleases  for  the  highest  as  well  as  the  lowest 
places,  the  choice  being  made  usually  without  regard  to  prior  service. 

There  has  been  no  time  in  the  whole  history  of  our  country  when  we  have  not 
had  some  men  serving  us  abroad  qualified  in  a high  degree  for  their  duties.  We 
have  such  men  to-day.  Mr.  Andrew  D.  White  and  Mr.  Strauss  have  served  under 
different  administrations  and  may  be  considered  trained  diplomatic  officers. 
Their  appointments  indicate  recognition  of  the  fact  that  experience  in  diplomacy 
is  valuable.  We  have  also  in  the  establishment  at  the  moment  Mr.  Joseph  H. 
Choate  and  General  Porter.  The  native  ability  and  the  breadth  of  general 
experience  of  these  men  stand  in  place  of  special  training. 

Beyond  a doubt  men  of  ability  may  always  be  found  ready  to  take  service 
abroad.  Sometimes  they  are  attracted  by  the  honor  which  attaches  to  the 
duty.  Sometimes  they  are  weary  of  work  at  home  and  are  seeking  rest.  Some- 
times they  find  in  a foreign  post  opportunities  for  study.  It  is  nevertheless 
safe  to  say  that  nine  out  of  every  ten  persons  in  our  diplomatic  service,  so  called, 
have  been  chosen,  not  for  fitness,  but  for  political  reasons.  This  one  was  active 
in  politics,  that  one  was  related  to  someone  active  in  politics,  another  was  in  the 
way  of  someone  active  in  politics,  that  one  failed  of  an  election  while  carrying 
the  party  banner  and  must  be  provided  for,  another  subscribed  heavily  for  the 
party’s  campaign  treasury  and  so  on. 

This  haphazard  system  or  lack  of  system  is  followed  when  surely  the  need  of 
a right  system  is  great.  It  is  not  a light  thing  to  be  the  person  selected  to  make 
public  appearance  for  our  nation  at  the  capital  of  some  other  great  nation,  to 
mingle  with  its  statesmen  in  representative  capacity,  to  speak  on  great  occasions 
and  to  take  part  in  great  public  functions.  But  the  social  and  ceremonial  duties 
of  a diplomat  are  incidental  only  to  his  graver  duties.  There  are  no  international 
Courts  in  which  international  controversies,  grave  or  unimportant,  can  be  tried. 
There  is  no  power  resident  in  an  international  agent  to  demand,  to  threaten  or  to 
use  force.  He  is  limited  to  such  influence  as  his  representative  capacity  and  his 
personal  qualities  afford.  And  upon  these  he  must  rely  to  win  over  the  Govern- 
ment to  which  he  is  accredited  to  the  w'ishes  and  purposes  of  his  own  Govern- 
ment. 

Again,  to  be  the  dependable  source  of  information  for  the  foreign  office  of  one’s 
State  is  by  itself  not  a light  thing.  It  is  difficult  for  most  men  to  take  just  views  of 


D1PL0 MA  TIC  SER  VICE. 


2 

homo  questions.  It  is  far  away  more  difficult  to  judge  of  questions  in  a foreign 
state.  It  is  not  merely  the  case  that  to  get  at  facts  is  not  an  easy  task  when  one 
is  amid  a strange  people.  The  facts  must  he  considered  and  presented  with 
knowledge  of  local  institutions,  methods  of  administration  and  national 
idiosyncrasies.  The  presentation  must  be  absolutely  without  prejudice.  The 
natural  instinct  of  every  man  is  to  believe  the  morals  and  the  methods,  the 
manners  and  the  fashions  of  his  own  country  the  best,  and  all  morals,  methods, 
manners  and  fashions  which  are  different,  ridiculous  if  not  vicious.  All  this 
points  to  the  proposition  that  a diplomatic  agent  must  be  capable  of  entering 
into  the  spirit  of  the  people  with  whom  he  lives,  of  appreciating  their  institutions 
and  of  judging  them  by  their  own  standards. 

We  all  know  that  success  in  any  line  of  individual  effort  does  not  necessarily 
indicate  breadth  of  ability.  The  successful  lawyer  may  be  a special  pleader, 
the  successful  preacher  a bigot,  the  successful  merchant  may  know  little  beside 
cotton  goods  or  coffee.  But  the  successful  diplomat  must  be  many-sided,  accom- 
plished, shrewd,  free  from  prejudices,  appreciative  and  just.  He  must  know 
what  is  serious  (and  that  is  a serious  thing  indeed).  He  must  know  also  how  to 
fit  means  to  ends.  He  must  be  a man  of  character,  absolutely  honest  and  abso- 
lutely incapable  of  misleading  his  own  Government  or  that  to  which  he  is 
accredited. 

I am  quite  aware  that  many  people  estimate  the  quality  of  a diplomat  differ- 
ently. In  their  estimation  his  proper  function  is  often  to  make  the  wrong  side 
appear  the  better,  to  speak  speciously  rather  than  sincerely.  Will  the  man  of 
character  do  these  things  ever?  Will  the  man  who  does  such  things  be  accept- 
able to  men  of  character  in  the  State  he  represents  or  in  that  to  which  he  is 
accredited?  It  is  only  necessary  to  state  the  question  to  enforce  the  conclusion. 
If  high  character  is  needed  anywhere  it  is  needed  in  diplomacy  if  permanent 
success  is  to  be  achieved. 

To  any  right  statement  of  the  qualities  of  a diplomat  there  must  be  included 
this  proposition — he  must  be  unselfish.  There  is  a saying  that  “ Peace  hath  her 
victories  no  less  renowned  than  war.”  But  a saying  quite  as  true  would  be, 

‘ * Peace  hath  her  victories  which  are  not  renowned  at  all.”  The  victories  of  a 
diplomatic  agent  are  generally  such.  If  he  heralds  them  to  the  world  he 
destroys  his  usefulness.  Perhaps  the  hardest  of  all  tasks  for  an  American  poli- 
tician turned  diplomat  is  to  hold  his  tongue  about  his  achievements,  real  or 
fancied. 

Again,  no  man  probably  ever  became  the  spokesman  of  any  nation  or  of  any 
interest  who  did  not  feel  the  task  of  moderating  and  managing  his  own  side 
greater  than  of  managing  the  other.  Stewart  L.  Woodford  is  said  to  have 
declared  that  if  left  alone  he  would  have  averted  war  with  Spain  while  gaining 
for  Cuba  all  that  America  could  reasonably  desire.  The  instance  is  salient,  but 
it  illustrates  my  point.  No  Secretary  of  State  is  gifted  with  universal  knowledge 
or  universal  sagacity;  neither  is  any  President  or  Cabinet.  The  nation’s  repre- 
sentative abroad  is,  so  to  speak,  casting  the  line  and  taking  the  soundings.  If 
well  informed,  he  is  able  to  chart  the  course  to  be  pursued.  A foreign  secretary 
without  able  representatives  in  foreign  States  is  in  a very  helpless  position. 


DIPLOMATIC  SERVICE. 


3 


A concrete  instance  of  the  highest  type  of  a diplomat  is  Benjamin  Franklin. 
Whether  one  considers  his  accomplishments,  his  common  sense,  his  shrewdness, 
his  constancy,  his  balance  of  judgment,  his  personal  charm,  his  acquaintance 
with  affairs  and  human  nature,  his  freedom  from  prejudices,  no  man  was  ever 
better  qualified  to  win  respect  and  to  achieve  success.  If  you  will  keep  him  in 
mind  as  the  ideal  representative  of  what  the  foreign  representative  of  a govern- 
ment should  be  you  will  at  least  know  of  what  my  conception  of  that  ideal  is. 

The  clash  of  interests  between  the  European  States  is  such  that  greater 
importance  attaches  to  their  foreign  services  than  is  the  case  with  us.  It  is 
Cavour,  Bismarck  and  Disraeli,  the  men  of  their  day  in  their  respective  States, 
who  deal  with  foreign  affairs.  But  even  with  us  the  post  of  Secretary  of  State  is 
the  leading  one,  and  it  is  true  that  the  line  of  Secretaries  of  State  has  been  more 
distinguished  for  ability  and  the  general  qualities  of  statesmanship  than  the  line 

of  our  Presidents. 

* 

Our  Government  is  based  upon  moral  ideas.  It  is  just  these  ideas  which  may 
be  enforced  in  diplomacy.  When  the  conclusions  of  a government  may  be 
enforced  by  arms,  when  the  State  is  great  because  of  its  military  resources, 
diplomacy  is  of  less  importance.  Brute  force  instead  of  moral  power  is  at  the 
front.  A late  representative  of  our  nation  in  Asia  has  said  that  before  the 
victory  of  Dewey  he  sab  helplessly  in  his  seat,  his  hands  hanging  by  his  side. 
Was  that  man  aware  of  the  moral  weight  of  his  country?  Had  he  learned  the 
alphabet  even  of  his  profession?  Burlingame  once  represented  America  at  that 
same  Court.  It  was  in  the  dark  days  of  our  Civil  War  and  no  one  of  our  men- 
of-war  was  on  that  side  of  the  globe.  Perhaps  no  diplomatic  agent  of  any  nation 
was  ever  more  respected  at  that  Court  or  more  successful  than  he. 

I mention  the  instance  of  our  helpless  representative,  not  to  throw  a stone, 
but  to  illustrate  a proposition.  Our  nation  is  as  ignorant  almost  of  the  use  which 
may  be  made  of  its  diplomatic  establishment  as  the  given  Minister  was  of  the 
possibilities  of  his  position.  I have  quoted  Mr.  Woodford’s  claim  that  he  could 
have  settled  the  Cuban  issue  satisfactorily.  Our  nation  was  so  little  acquainted 
with  the  idea  that  great  issues  may  be  settled  by  diplomacy  that  it  drifted  into 
war.  Do  we,  as  a nation,  appreciate  the  moral  weight  of  our  country  ? For 
America  there  should  never  be  need  of  war.  We  ought  never  to  embark  upon 
any  wrong  adventure.  If  right  in  the  issue  our  strength  is  such  that  no  exhibi- 
tion of  it  should  be  necessary.  As  a matter  of  fact,  however,  we  have  never 
learned  how  little  we  need  to  anticipate  war  nor  how  to  build  and  use  a diplo- 
matic establishment  which  may  serve  to  avert  it. 

If  regard  be  had  only  to  issues  of  peace  or  war  it  must  be  remembered  that 
these  have  come  to  us  of  late  with  alarming  frequency.  In  ten  years  we  have 
had  a grave  dispute  with  Chili  over  the  abuse  of  sailors,  with  England  over 
the  Venezuelan  boundary  matter,  and  with  Spain  over  Cuba.  The  two  former 
were  settled.  The  latter  resulted  in  a war  which  has  led  to  a second  war,  the 
end  of  which  is  not  yet  in  sight.  Diplomacy  which  would  have  averted  these 
wars  would  have  been  cheap  at  any  imaginable  cost.  But  outside  of  issues 
involving  war  or  peace  it  would  be  difficult  to  overestimate  the  duties  of  a diplo- 
matic agent.  In  a thousand  ways  he  may  be  useful  to  his  country  and  his 


4 


DIPLOMATIC  SERVICE. 


countrymen.  In  whatever  case  his  State  or  people  touch  the  State  or  people  to 
which  he  is  accredited,  his  services  may  be.needed.  He  has  a guardianship  as 
respects  the  private  rights  of  individuals  of  his  nationality  and  as  respects  the 
rights  of  the  commonwealth.  He  prepares  treaties  and  he  enforces  the  observance 
of  them.  He  studies  and  reports  upon  administrative  matters.  He  watches  the 
course  of  scientific  discoveries  and  points  the  way  to  the  utilization  of  them  at 
home.  He  is  expected  tb  be  broadly  useful  and  the  variety  and  extent  of  his 
work  is  such  that  he  has  the  fullest  opportunities  for  the  exercise  of  the  highest 
qualities  and  accomplishments. 

Surely  when  such  is  the  case  we  might  projierly  suppose  that  our  Govern- 
ment has  fitted  means  to  ends  in  providing  an  efficient  and  creditable  diplomatic 
establishment.  Our  failure  to  do  so  is  extreme. 

In  the  first  place  we  do  not  pay  our  representatives  adequately.  This  will  be 
evident  on  the  slightest  presentation  of  the  facts. 

There  are  six  Ambassadors  in  the  service.  The  highest  salary  paid  is  $17,500, 
the  lowest  $12,000. 

Note  how  this  compares  with  the  salaries  of  men  in  business  employments, 
railroad  presidents,  for  instance.  The  latter  are  paid  from  $30,000  to  $60,000  a 
year.  The  aggregate  sum  paid  to  six  Ambassadors  would  only  pay  the  salary  of 
the  president  of  a first-class  railway  one  and  a half  times. 

There  are  twenty-four  Ministers  Plenipotentiary.  These  receive  in  the  aggre- 
gate $213,000,  or  about  $9,009  each,  or  individually,  say,  one-sixth  of  the  salary 
of  a railway  president. 

There  are  four  Ministers  Kesident  receiving  altogether  $19,000,  or  less  than 
$5,000  each. 

Considering  that  a foreign  representative  must  live  in  a style  befitting  his 
capacity  as  an  international  agent,  does  it  not  seem  absurd  to  pay  him,  not  merely 
on  a lower  scale  than  a business  man  of  high  grade,  but  actually  less  than  com- 
petent salesmen  in  wholesale  stores  sometimes  receive. 

In  the  next  place  a Minister’s  ^official  residence  should  be  dignified  as  suited 
to  his  station.  With  us  it  is  such,  in  fact,  as  the  given  representative  is  disposed  or 
can  afford  to  make  it.  This  obviously  is  wrong.  The  Government  should  own  an 
official  house  at  each  capital  and  it  should  be  on  a suitable  scale.  Our  foreign 
representatives  are  often  lodged  so  cheaply  that  they  suffer  in  public  estimation. 

Again,  a foreign  representative  should  be  well  equipped  for  his  work.  He 
should  speak  the  language  of  the  Court  to  which  he  is  accredited  or  at  least 
should  speak  French,  which  measurably  is  the  language  of  diplomacy.  He 
should  be  thoroughly  familiar  with  international  law  and  with  the  forms  and 
usages  [of  diplomatic  representation.  When  so  equipped  he  is  just  fitted  to 
begin  the  delicate  duty  devolved  upon  him.  Years  of  experience  will  be 
required  to  make  him  a diplomat  in  the  sense  that  the  men  trained  m the  Euro- 
pean services  are  diplomats.  The  rudiments  of  his  profession  well  acquired  will 
not  make  him  a diplomat  in  a right  sense  any  more  than  study  in  the  law  school 
or  medical  college  will  make  a man  fit  to  be  employed  for  work  in  the  trial  of 
cases  or  the  curing  of  diseases.  Actual  work  in  his  proper  field  will  be  as  neces- 
sary to  his  success  as  it  is  in  the  success  of  men  in  other  vocations.  For  one 


DIPLOMA  TIC  SER  VICE. 


5 


lawyer  of  the  stamp  of  Webster  or  Choate,  there  are  thousands  who  live  from 
hand  to  mouth.  We  do  not  always  stop  to  consider  that  men  able  to  com- 
mand success  in  two  or  more  diverse  occupations  are  far  away  fewer,  in 
proportion.  A man  is  like  a tool.  He  has  fitness  when  trained  for  one  thing. 
He  cannot  readily  be  made  over  to  fitness  for  another  thing.  We  Americans  con- 
sider ourselves  more  adaptable  than  other  peoples.  We  also  think  ourselves 
more  virtuous.  Perhaps  we  are,  but  perhaps  also  we  are  more  vain.  “ Vanity 
of  vanities,”  saith  the  preacher. 

Americans  touch  government  most  closely  in  the  administration  of  local 
municipalities.  He  would  be  a bold  American  who  would  declare  that  there  is 
very  much  virtue  or  capacity  exhibited  in  the  control  of  our  cities.  We  touch 
our  diplomatic  establishment  the  least  of  all  our  departments.  He  may  be  a 
bold  American  who  supposes  we  are  reasonably  successful  in  it.  We  cannot 
take  our  diplomatic  establishment  and,  so  to  speak,  weigh  it  in  a balance  and 
compare  weights  with  those  of  other  nations.  The  success  of  an  individual  is 
due  to  qualities  which  are  equally  incapable  of  being  measured.  Even  personal 
charms  are  of  an  intangible  sort.  The  eye  of  the  poet  rolls  in  a fine  frenzy,  but 
an  eye  habitually  rolling  in  frenzy  does  not  make  its  owner  a poet.  It  is  an  old 
saying  that  you  may  vote  that  a horse  shall  be  a general,  but  that  does  not  make 
him  so. 

The  success  of  our  diplomatic  establishment  at  large  must  be  derived  from 
the  success  of  its  individual  members.  If  it  is  to  stand  high,  if  the  weight  is  to 
be  right,  the  units  must  be  right.  If  we  are  to  have  a right  wreight  of  units  we 
musl  choose  them  on  a right  system.  And  there  is  no  way  in  private  business 
or  in  public  to  be  reasonably  sure  of  the  merit  of  any  choice  of  an  agent  which 
is  not  determined  from  observation  of  the  fitness  of  the  individual  in  the  same 
line  of  duty.  Until  men  have  proven  themselves  right  diplomats,  there  is  no 
certainty  that  they  will  do  diplomatic  work  well.  Until  we  have  a diplomatic 
service  in  which  each  individual  may  be  tested,  we  will  have  no  way  to  choose 
our  units  with  any  certainty  of  being  right. 

Is  this  all  theory?  I grant  it.  Is  it  a reasonable  theory?  Each  must  judge 
for  himself  or  herself.  Having  so  judged,  then  rack  your  brains  and  answer  also 
whether  any  system  which  is  not  right  in  theory  works  out  well  in  practice.  My 
own  experience  is  that  we  might  as  well  try  to  make  water  run  up  hill  by  gravity 
as  to  try  to  make  a success  in  working  any  business  on  wrong  lines.  One  may  be 
a theorist  and  fail.  One  cannot  be  a successful  administrator  unless  consciously 
or  unconsciously  he  follows  a system  based  on  right  theory. 

We  may  distrust  the  theory  of  any  European  State.  We  may  distrust  any 
theory  adhered  to  by  all  the  European  States.  They  all  adhere  to  the  idea  that 
a diplomatic  establishment  must  be  operated  as  a service.  There  diplomatic 
work  is  important.  The  great  State  has  great  interests.  The  small  State  must 
conserve  and  safeguard  what  it  has.  Do  you  find  in  the  practice  of  the  dozen  or 
more  European  States — this  uniform  practice  of  all — any  defense  for  the  American 
system?  If  you  do  I will  take  off  my  hat  metaphorically  in  presence  of  your 
sturdy  patriotism  and  just  keep  on  wondering  whether  your  patriotic  hats  have 
unduly  compressed  the  gray  matter  under  them. 


I will  not  undertake  to  develop  tlie  details  of  tlie  service  system  as  practiced 
in  Europe.  I may  say  tliat  it  involves  the  careful  choice  of  the  novices.  They 
must  be  persons  who  have  won  their  spurs  in  the  universities.  Formerly  they 
had  to  come  from  families  habituated  to  the  service  of  the  State.  We  have  uni- 
versity men  also,  and  it  is  by  no  means  difficult  with  us  to  find  also  persons  who 
have  had  relations  in  office.  The  race  of  Plunketts,  of  Murphys,  even  the  stock 
of  Crokers,  may  not  soon  die  out.  So  far  as  this  goes  we  have  a broader  supply, 
perhaps,  of  the  raw  material  for  diplomacy  than  any  European  power,  it  may  be 
than  all  combined. 

Of  the  ways  of  culling  men  for  advancement  or  the  reverse  practiced  in  Europe 
I shall  not  speak.  Seniority  is  no  more  the  rule  for  promotions  than  it  was  in 
our  Navy  in  the  last  war.  Incapacity,  too,  finds  its  level  sooner  in  a regular 
service. 

There  is  one  pertinent  question  about  the  service  plan.  Will  it  have  members 
enough  to  develop  the  best  results?  Will  there  be  room  for  choice?  Europe  has 
found  no  reason  to  hesitate  on  this  score.  America  probably  would  not.  It  has 
always  seemed  to  be,  however,  that  it  would  be  well  for  us  to  make  the  consular 
establishment  also  a service  and  to  permit  of  the  choice  of  diplomatic  agents 
from  the  lists  of  both  services.  There  are  ten  Consuls  for  one  Minister,  and  the 
training  in  each  branch  is  largely  similar. 

I am  wrell  aware  of  the  failing  of  human  kind  which  leads  people  to  consider 
what  is  as  best.  I am  well  aware  that  a reformer  is  generally  considered  an  un- 
practical schemer.  There  is  no  use  in  finding  fault  with  this  tendency  of  human 
nature.  I am  fain  to  believe,  however,  that  the  American  people  are  honestly 
striving  for  the  things  which  are  best.  I have  no  desire  to  put  before  you  any- 
thing excepting  my  conception  of  what  is  best.  With  the  question  whether  the 
best  thing  as  I conceive  it  is  going  to  be  adopted  I am  not  concerned  at  the 
moment.  I did  not  come  to  you  to  make  prophecies.  But  I may  say  this  that 
the  thing  which  is  logical  and  right  will  come  to  pass  sooner  or  later  unless, 
indeed,  the  American  state  tends  to  the  worse  rather  than  to  the  better  things. 

It  is  quite  true  that  a vicious  system  tends  to  develop  on  its  vicious  side.  It 
is  also  true  that  when  any  system  has  gone  very  bad  remedial  measures  are  likely 
to  be  taken.  Our  system  has  not  yet  shown  up  so  badly  that  the  call  for  a change 
has  become  loud.  But  undoubtedly  it  is  becoming  worse.  With  the  machine 
politicians  controlling  all  nominations  to  public  office,  with  our  Presidents  con- 
sulting machine  bosses  and  deferring  to  them  in  all  ways,  what  chance  is  there 
that  our  foreign  ministers  will  be  chosen  for  merit.  Joseph  H.  Choate  could  not 
be  selected  Minister  to  England  until  the  Republican  boss  of  New  York  had  been 
consulted.  Merit  is  in  fact  the  last  thing  which  is  considered.  • Machine  politics 
are  everywhere.  It  is  an  era  of  degradation  in  our  public  services.  It  is  an  era 
which  may  be  succeeded  by  a better  one.  A similar  or  worse  degradation  of  the 
public  services  existed  in  Great  Britain,  but  better  things  have  come  there. 
When  we  get  beyond  machine  politics,  when  the  people  come  to  their  own,  we 
will  get  not  one,  but  many,  reforms.  Until  then  all  reform  movements  will  lag. 


THE  CENTRALIZATION  OF  POPULATION  AS  AFFECTING 
THE  FUTURE  OF  DEMOCRACY. 


By  Adna  F.  Weber,  Ph.  D.,  Deputy  Commissioner  of  Labor  Statistics, 

State  of  New  York. 

For  many  years  tlie  portentous  growth  of  our  great  cities  has  perturbed  the 
thoughts  of  American  statesmen  and  publicists,  who  believe,  like  their  European 
rivals,  that  the  strength  of  a nation  rests  upon  the  vigor  and  enterprise  of  the 
cultivators  of  the  soil^.  “God  made  the  country;  man  made  the  city.”  The 
gradual  but  persistent  transformation  of  our  country  from  a community  of  land 
owners  into  a nation  of  city-dwellers  is  one  of  the  most  striking  social  phenomena 
of  the  century.  The  United  States  has  to-day  a single  city  numbering  more 
inhabitants  than  could  be  counted  in  the  whole  country  100  years  ago.  Then 
there  were  only  five  American  towns  with  a population  of  10,000  or  more,  and 
the  greatest  of  these  was  no  larger  than  Yonkers  or  Long  Island  City.  Then  not 
one  American  in  thirty  was  a town-dweller;  to-day,  every  third  American  you 
meet  has  his  home  in  a city  (a  town  of  8,000  or  more  inhabitants).  And  at  the 
present  rate  of  change,  it  will  be  only  one  or  two  decades  more  before  one-half 
the  inhabitants  of  this  country  are  city  people. 

Let  it  not  be  thought  that  this  momentous  movement  of  population  is  the 
consequence  of  conditions  peculiar  to  our  own  country.  On  the  contrary,  the 
same  phenomenon  appears  throughout  the  old  and  settled  communities  of 
Europe.  Leaving  out  of  consideration  the  newly  built  cities  of  the  West, 
brought  into  being  by  the  swift  occupation  of  that  unopened  empire,  the  ob- 
server will  soon  recognize  that  city  for  city,  old  Europe  equals  or  surpasses 
young  America.  In  the  last  half  century  Berlin  has  grown  more  rapidly  than 
the  metropolitan  district  of  New  York,  including  Brooklyn  and  the  Jersey 
cities;  Vienna  has  distanced  Philadelphia;  Hamburg,  Boston;  and  Buda-Pesth, 
Baltimore.  In  the  other  countries  of  Europe  cities  have  been  growing  up  at  a 
Tate  scarcely  less  rapid. 

In  Europe,  too,  the  concentration  of  population  is  more  extreme  than  in  the 
United  States.  At  least  twelve  other  countries  have  a larger  percentage  of 
urbanites,  defining  the  city  as  a place  of  10,000  population.  If  the  comparison 
be  restricted  to  large  cities  (those  of  100,000  or  more  inhabitants),  the  United 
States  will  rank  about  tenth  among  the  nations  in  respect  to  centralization  of 
its  population.  In  England  two-thirds  of  the  people  are  now  town-dwellers, 
while  one-third  dwell  in  great  cities.  Likewise  in  Scotland,  Australia  and 
Uruguay  one-third  of  the  people  are  residents  of  cities  of  100,000.  In  the  United 
States  as  a whole  the  percentage  of  population  resident  in  such  great  cities  is 
only  15.5,  or  one  in  six;  but  in  individual  states  this  percentage  is  greatly  ex- 
ceeded. Thus,  one-half  of  the  people  of  New  York  State  confess  allegiance  to 
the  metropolis  alone  and  another  large  fraction  dwell  in  Buffalo,  Rochester, 
Syracuse  and  the  two  Hudson  River  towns. 

The  causes  of  such  a universal  centralization  of  population  in  the  present 
century  are  not  deeply  hidden.  Until  the  opening  of  this  century,  few  of  the 


8 


CENTRALIZATION  OF  POPULATION. 


large  cities  of  tlie  world  could  have  continued  their  existence  if  cut  off  from  the 
country,  for  they  lost  more  by  deaths  than  they  gained  in  births  and  depended 
on  the  rural  districts  for  recruits.  The  progress  of  medical  science  and  of  public 
sanitation  has  however  stayed  the  ravages  of  death,  so  that  at  the  present  time 
the  cities  enjoy  a large  excess  of  births  over  deaths.  This  natural  increase  alone 
would  explain  the  accelerated  growth  of  cities  in  recent  times.  But  why  does 
the  current  of  migration  from  farm  and  village  to  city,  once  so  essential  to  the 
city’s  existence,  still  move  onward  in  undiminished  volume,  after  the  city  has 
demonstrated  its  ability  to  supply  its  own  increase?  The  answer  is  given  by  the 
laws  of  industry  and  economics.  The  centralization  of  population  is  simply  a 
phase  of  the  evolution  of  society. 

Many  Americans,  even  here  in  the  East,  can  remember  the  day  when  their 
parents  not  only  tilled  the  soil,  but  produced  their  own  wool,  spun  and  wove 
their  own  clothes,  and  had  their  boots  made  by  the  village  shoemaker.  The 
widening  of  the  social  bond  has  changed  all  that.  The  factory  and  the  railroad, 
mutual  allies  and  friends,  have  taken  away  from  the  tillers  of  the  soil  all  sub- 
sidiary occupations  and  removed  them  to  the  city.  The  miller,  the  weaver,  the 
shoemaker,  the  cabinet  maker  have  all  moved  to  town.  And  this  transfer  of 
industries  from  the  country  to  the  city  is  going  on  to-day.  To-morrow  men  now 
at  work  harvesting  or  plowing  on  the  farm  will  be  called  to  the  city  to  make  the 
machinery  that  will  in  future  plow  the  fields  and  harvest  the  grain. 

The  cities  are  centers  of  industry  and  commerce,  and  as  both  industry 
and  commerce  are  always  rapidly  increasing,  while  agriculture  increases  but 
slowly  in  obedience  to  the  gradual  growth  of  population,  it  follows  that  the  cities 
must  continue  to  absorb  an  increasing  proportion  of  people. 

The  movement  of  population  from  the  country  to  the  city  is  attended  with 
certain  dangers  weich  have  been  frequently  proclaimed.  The  most  obvious  of 
these  dangers  is  a deterioration  in  the  physique  or  morals  of  the  people,  brought 
about  by  the  overcrowded  conditions  of  city  life,  the  lack  of  pure  air  and  whole- 
some exercise.  A review  of  the  recent  vital  statistics,  however,  shows  that  the 
death  rate  of  the  great  cities  is  being  steadily  reduced.  In  one  of  two  of  the 
German  States,  indeed,  the  cities  are  now  actually  more  healthy  than  the  rural 
districts.  Less  progress  has  been  made  in  this  country,  so  far  as  can  be  judged, 
from  our  imperfect  vital  statistics;  and  it  is  very  necessary  that  the  work  of 
reform  be  undertaken  with  renewed  vigor.  We  need  additional  small  parks  and 
playgrounds  (the  lungs  of  the  great  city),  more  stringent  building  laws  and  their 
honest  enforcement,  and  especially  more  rapid  transit,  so  as  to  permit  working 
people  to  move  out  of  crowded  tenements  to  cottage  homes  on  the  outskirts. 

Another  problem  that  we  shall  have  to  solve  is  imposed  upon  us  by  the  con- 
centration of  wealth  accompanying  the  concentration  of  population.  So  long  as 
wealth  is  honestly  used,  the  American  people  are  not  disposed  to  debate  the 
expediency  of  private  ownership.  But  when  the  possessors  of  natural  monopolies 
like  gas,  water,  electric  lighting  and  street  railways  enter  into  an  alliance  with 
the  people’s  representatives  for  the  purpose  of  exploiting  the  citizen,  then  there 
arises  a disposition  to  question  the  wisdom  of  private  ownership  and  manage- 
ment. We  cannot  blind  our  eyes  to  the  fact  that  the  policy  of  public  control  of 


CENTRALIZATION  OF  POPULATION. 


9 


quasi-public  undertakings  has  so  far  failed  in  this  country  as  to  provoke  a strong 
agitation  in  favor  of  socialism.  If  socialism  is  the  only  remedy  left,  it  is  by  all 
means  preferable  that  the  first  experiments  be  made  in  small  communities  before 
the  State  and  the  nation  are  called  upon  to  embark  upon  such  a venturesome 
policy. 

In  still  another  direction  can  the  cities  be  of  service  to  democracy,  namely, 
in  preserving  the  open  competition  which  our  ideals  regard  as  essential  in  the 
process  of  natural  selection.  The  fundamental  social  problem  is  how  to  bring 
capable  men  to  the  front;  to  put  the  true  social  leaders  in  positions  of  responsi- 
bility. In  countries  where  a system  of  caste  prevails,  the  function  of  providing 
leaders  is  exercised  by  the  aristocracy;  and  in  such  countries  the  need  of  great 
arenas  or  meeting  grounds  of  talent  is  not  felt.  But  a democracy  of  such  terri- 
torial extent  as  our  own  requires  foci  of  competition  as  the  central  instruments 
of  natural  selection.  Such  foci  are,  in  fact,  our  great  cities,  and  the  social 
service  which  they  render  is  of  incalculable  value. 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  CHARITY. 

By  Edward  T.  De  Vine,  Ph.  D.,  Secretary  Charity  Organization  Society, 

New  York. 

I trust,  and  have  some  grounds  for  believing,  that  the  problem  of  charity  in 
its  narrower  sense  is  of  diminishing  importance.  By  charity  in  its  narrower 
sense,  I mean,  of  course,  that  charity  which  seeks  expression  in  material  gifts — 
of  money  or  kind — the  necessity  for  which  arises  from  some  deficiency,  either  of 
will  or  of  capacity  in  the  one  who  receives  them.  The  spirit  of  humanity  has 
grown  ever  stronger,  more  sensitive,  more  dominating.  In  no  civilized  com- 
munity does  it  now  tolerate  obvious  suffering  from  the  lack  of  food,  shelter, 
clothing,  medical  care,  nor  in  children  does  it  permit  an  entire  absence  of  edu- 
cational opportunities,  or  of  other  necessary  social  conditions  of  normal  develop- 
ment. Organized  charity,  using  that  expression  as  a collective  term  for  relief 
societies,  hospitals,  asylums,  nurseries,  and  other  established  agencies  for  [the 
relief  and  prevention  of  distress,  is  a different  and,  whatever  its  occasional 
critics  may  say,  a better  thing  than  the  spasmodic,  ineffectual  and  ill- distributed 
personal  charity  from  which  it  sprang.  It  is  the  unknown  term  in  the  earlier 
problem  of  charity  wTkich  has  been  found  and  which,  to  use 'still  the  language 
of  algebra,  we  may  now  substitute  to  our  great  advantage  in  the  larger  but  per- 
haps, after  all,  the  simpler  problem  of  which  we  still  seek  the  solution.  To  the 
uninitiated  it  looks  like  dubious  progress  to  substitute  for  the  simple  symbol  of 
an  unknown  quantity  the  elaborate  and  complicated  expression  in  which  at  a 
certain  stage  the  known  factors  insist  upon  disguising  themselves.  Even  so, 
there  are  those  who  inveigh  against  present  institutionalism  in  charity  and 
lament  the  passing  of  simpler  arrangements  by  which  in  a primitive  society  help 
is  given  to  neighbors.  Be  patient.  Our  social  progress  will  unfold  in  time,  from 
these  complicated  and  as  yet  too  mechanical  institutions  and  agencies,  a system 
which  shall  have  one  present  completeness  and  vastness,  a symmetrical  plan 
for  meeting  all  types  of  distress,  and  for  anticipating  all  possible  physical  dis- 
asters, while  satisfying  better  perhaps  than  at  present  our  legitimate  demands 
for  a better  adaptation  of  institutions  to  varying  and  irreducible  human  nature. 

In  the  practice  of  charity  we  generalize  too  quickly.  We  form  unwarranted 
conclusions  from  one, or  two  personal  experiences,  or,  still  worse,  we  take  them 
ready-made  without  any  experiences  at  all.  We  have  known,  it  may  be,  of  some 
striking  instance  of  undeserved  and  unavoidable  misfortune.  Illness,  or  a rela- 
tive’s death,  or  business  reverses,  or  an  industrial  displacement  such  as  some- 
times occurs,  has  left  some  friend  of  ours  stranded.  We  have  known  of  the 
family  stock  from  which  he  sprang.  We  have  known  his  industry,  his  prudence 
in  ordinary  matters,  his  integrity.  Without  thinking  of  the  matter  at  any  great 
length,  without  investigation,  of  course,  for  we  have  known  the  facts,  with  a 
promptness  and  spontaneity  which  do  credit  to  both  head  and  heart,  we  spring 
to  his  assistance,  help  him  over  his  temporary  embarrassment,  place  him  under 
obligations  which,  since  they  are  but  an  incident  in  a lifelong  friendship,  are 
justly  ignored  upon  both  sides.  Help  that  helps  has  been  given  and  not  help 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  CHARITY. 


11 


that  harms,  and  no  harm  has  come  of  it.  Outside  of  the  friends  concerned,  no 
one  knows  of  the  transaction  at  all.  This  experience  is  not  uncommon,  but  it 
is  an  uncommonly  dangerous  one  from  which  to  generalize  in  the  adoption  of  a 
line  of  action  which  falls  to  any  extent  outside  the  conditions  suggested. 

The  difficulties  in  which  those  are  involved  who  ask  help  from  strangers,  or 
from  persons  who  are  richer  in  the  possession  of  worldly  goods  than  themselves 
are  not  often  primarily  due  to  causes  outside  themselves.  They  are  due  either 
to  faults  which  must  be  eradicated,  or,  as  I think  more  often,  to  the  absence  of 
qualities,  moral  or  economic,  which  they  and  their  children  must  develop  unless 
the  dependency  is  to  be  permanent.  If  we  are  unwilling  to  contribute  to  the 
dependency  and  weakness  of  our  neighbors  whom  we  do  not  know  personally,  we 
shall  not  give  that  which  supplies  their  present  apparent  needs,  creating  in  them 
expectations  which  we  do  not  intend  to  fulfill,  causing  them  it  may  be  to  sink 
to  a lower  level  still  in  appeals  to  others,  even  for  the  things  which,  when  we  gave 
to  them,  they  were  earning  for  themselves.  Such  dependency  is  progressive  and 
rapid.  We  are  in  danger  of  creating  it  whenever,  without  knowledge  or  reflec- 
tion, we  give  in  alms  that  which  is  asked  of  us,  whether  it  be  money,  or  clothes 
or  lood,  or  drink.  There  is  another  generalization  of  an  opposite  sort  to  which 
under  modern  conditions  the  average  citizen  is  even  more  prone. 

He  finds  that  some  case  of  destitution  which  has  especially  appealed  to  him 
is  fraudulent.  He  gets  a very  unfavorable  report  from  the  investigating  society 
to  which  he  has  referred  it.  The  man  drinks,  the  children  whose  pinched  and 
miserable  faces  had  so  drawn  upon  his  pity  are  borrowed  for  purposes  of  beg- 
ging, the  pitiful  letter  to  which  he  came  so  near  responding  with  a generous 
check  is  one  of  a thousand  sent  out  to  names  selected  from  the  Elite  Directory. 
The  reaction  from  the  benevolent  glow  to  disappointment  and  disgust  carries  the 
victim  to  very  unjust  and  unwarranted  inferences.  He  grasps  at  the  suggestion 
that  charity  is  a vanity  and  a snare,  and  that  there  is  no  need  to  help  others. 
He  becomes  callous  and  indifferent  and  thinks  that  he  does  his  full  duty  if  he 
sends  an  annual  check  to  some  charity  society,  and  that  he  will  be  charitable 
henceforth  by  proxy. 

Believe  me,  neither  of  these  two  opposite  classes  have  so  much  as  seen  what 
the  problem  of  charity  really  is.  The  view  which  I would  present  forbids  the 
charitable  from  acting  upon  either  of  these  easy  generalizations. 

I said  that  those  who  are  obliged  to  ask  for  help  are  often  without  qualities 
which  must  be  implanted  or  developed  from  latent  germs.  This  does  not  at  all 
necessarily  involve  any  personal  condemnation.  Those  who  do  not  succeed  in 
life  may  be  persons  of  very  attractive  qualities.  A clergyman  preaching  from 
the  text,  “Jacob  have  I loved,  but  Esau  have  I hated,”  contrasted  the  personal 
qualities  of  these  two  ancient  Hebrews  very  much  to  Esau’s  advantage,  but 
then  pointed  out  that  for  God’s  immediate  purposes  Jacob  did  have  the  quali- 
ties which  made  him  usable  in  the  working  out  of  the  great  plan  of  human  history, 
and  that  Esau,  lacking  these,  although  as  manly,  magnanimous  and  truthful  as 
his  brother,  was  cowardly,  parsimonious  and  crafty,  yet  went  to  the  wall. 

Now,  the  man  who  is  in  position  to  give  relief  has  not  the  role  of  a moral 
judge.  He  is  not  expected  to  give  as  a righteous  re  warder  of  virtue  and  punisher 


12 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  CHARITY. 


of  vice.  Ho  is  not  called  upon  to  decide,  as  the  unwise  nomenclature  sometimes 
used  in  charity  offices  puts  it,  between  the  worthy  and  the  unworthy.  He  does 
not  say  to  himself,  at  least  he  ought  not  to  say:  I will  give  to  this  beggar  be- 
cause I like  him,  while  I will  turn  my  back  upon  that  one  because  he  seems  to 
me  to  be  a villain.  Relief  given  upon  this  basis  has  no  claim  to  be  called 
charity.  It  has  no  real  relation  to  the  welfare  of  the  recipient  of  the  gift. 

If,  however,  having  abandoned  absolutely  the  fruitless  attempt  to  adjust  his 
alms  in  some  way  to  the  personal  deserts  of  the  beneficiary,  the  would-be  bene- 
factdr  takes  into  account  the  probable  effect  of  his  gifts,  and  if  he  selects  his 
poor  upon  the  principle  that  he  will  give  only  to  those  who  may  receive  without 
injury,  there  open  up  before  him  at  once  the  real  problems,  the  fascinating 
problems  of  charity,  the  more  modest  but  more  fruitful  problems  at  which  hun- 
dreds of  devoted  men  and  women  are  working  at  this  moment,  to  the  solution  of 
which  I would  invite  yet  hundreds  more.. 

Do  not  think  of  our  problem  as  one  big,  burning,  baffling  question  to  which 
an  answer  once  for  all  can  be  found — Single  Tax,  eight  hours  or  Socialism.  It 
requires  a long  series  of  scientific  experiments,  accurately  observed  and  recorded, 
cautious  generalization,  judicious  comparison,  patient  investigation.  Some  light 
w’e  have  already. 

For  example,  widows  with  small  children  may  be  liberally  aided  through 
some  pension  plan,  by  which  rent  and  perhaps  some  other  expenses  are  regularly 
paid.  Even  if  an  income  large  enough  to  meet  all  expenses  is  provided,  they 
still  have  their  full  natural  burden  of  caring  for  home  and  children.  They  are 
not  pauperized  by  the  provision  of  such  an  income.  Dependent  to  an  extent 
they  are  naturally  and  must  be  if  they  are  to  do  their  duty  by  their  own  chil- 
dren. This  is  a better  form  of  assistance  than  to  remove  the  children  to  an 
asylum,  leaving  the  mother  to  earn  her  living  as  an  unmarried  woman  might.  It 
is  better  for  the  mother  to  have  the  task  of  caring  for  her  own  offspring.  It  is 
better  for  them  to  have  the  family  influences  and  ties.  It  is  cheaper  for  the 
community.  So  much  may  be  said  to  be  established,  but  there  is  even  in  this 
particular  class  of  cases  still  much  to  be  ascertained.  From  what  source  should 
this  aid  come?  First  of  all,  of  course  from  near  relatives.  But  when  this  fails? 
From  the  church  if  there  are  church  ties? — from  a benefit  fund  to  which  the  hus- 
band had  paid  in  dues? — from  neighbors,  from  relief  societies  organized  for  this 
purpose,  from  strangers  whom  some  society  makes  it  a part  of  its  business  to 
interest? — from  the  public  treasury?  The  one  point  about  the  matter  on  which 
nearly  all  thoughtful  persons  who  have  considered  the  matter  are  united,  is  that 
it  should  not  be  from  the  public  treasury.  About  all  else  we  are  in  a stage  of 
investigation  and  discussion  and  experiment. 

Again,  there  is  pretty  general  approval  of  whatever  can  be  done  either  by 
private  charity  or  from  funds  raised  by  taxation  to  cure  disease,  to  prevent  its 
spread,  and  to  create  favorable  hygienic  conditions.  Where,  however,  is  the 
line  which  separates  in  this  field  the  duty  of  the  State  from  that  of  private 
charity?  Here  lies  a most  interesting,  and  in  this  State  at  the  present  moment 
a most  live  and  important  theoretical  problem.  Shall  we  establish,  as  Massachu- 
setts has  just  done,  a State  Sanatorium  for  incipient  cases  of  pulmonary  tuber- 


T1IE  PROBLEM  OF  CHARITY. 


13 


culosis,  and  so  attempt  to  check  the  ravages  of  the  great  white  plague  about 
which  we  have  learned  so  much  within  a dozen  years,  but  without  as  yet,  as  Dr. 
Pryor,  of  Buffalo,  said  recently  at  the  Academy  of  Medicine,  having  utilized  our 
knowledge  in  such  a way  as  to  benefit  in  the  slightest  degree  the  great  body  of 
the  suffering  poor  whom  it  ravages  as  neither  war  nor  all  other  human  diseases 
combined  harass  them.  It  is  a live  question,  with  which  in  one  form  or  another 
every  State  must  grapple  if  it  would  not  do  violence  to  the  very  spirit  of  charity. 

The  problem  of  charity,  put  generally,  is  to  enlist  for  the  service  of  our 
common  humanity  the  more  thoughtful  and  continuous  attention  of  good 
citizens  in  the  tasks  which  fall  upon  the  public  and  private  charitable  agencies 
in  the  community,  to  the  end  that  public  officials  may  have  our  intelligent 
criticism,  our  hearty  support  in  the  performance  of  their  duty,  our  apprecia- 
tion of  their  reforms  and  advances,  our  denunciation  if  they  are  recreant;  and  to 
the  end  that  our  private  societies,  religious  and  secular,  charitable  and  educa- 
tional, those  that  are  highly  organized,  and  those  that  are  modest  and  largely 
individual  in  their  plan,  whatever  their  character  and  scope,  may  all  be  infused 
with  a spirit  of  brotherhood^  that  they  may  be  flexible,  elastic,  responsive  to 
new  needs,  that  they  may  be  fit  instruments  in  the  hands  of  Providence  for  the 
regeneration  of  man  and  the  creation  of  a new  social  order. 

That  the  present  discussion  may  be  left  in  a concrete  form  it  may  be  in  place 
to  point  out  certain  charitable  needs  of  our  community  at  the  present  time. 
There  are  needed  homes  for  aged  persons  in  which  those  who  are  left  homeless 
and  friendless  in  old  age,  but  whose  lives  have  been  decent,  and  who,  because  of 
good  character,  should  be  kept,  if  possible,  from  the  almshouse.  We  have 
many  such  homes,  but  nearly  all  have  long  waiting  lists,  and  in  many  instances 
those  who  are  otherwise  suitable  candidates  for  admission  to  them  are  debarred 
because  there  are  no  vacancies,  or  because  of  strict  rules  requiring  adhesion  to 
a particular  religious  faith. 

Homes  for  incurables  and  for  convalescents  are  also  unable  to  cope  with  the 
demand  for  their  shelter.  In  certain  districts  day  nurseries  are  needed  with 
careful  supervision  to  prevent  their  improper  use  and  their  unwise  location. 
An  increased  number  of  sick  diet  kitchens  would  be  justified.  Increased  relief 
funds  that  are  available,  not  merely  for  supplying  the  bare  necessities  of  life, 
but  for  expenditure  in  a given  case,  if  necessary,  in  liberal  amount,  to  provide 
for  the  entire  maintenance  of  a family  for  brief  XDeriods  under  exceptional 
circumstances;  a plan  by  which  rent  and  other  necessary  recurring  expenses 
may  be  met  for  a widow  with  several  small  children  who  is  not  in  position,  both 
to  care  for  the  children  and  to  earn  their  support;  institutions  for  the  isolation 
of  advanced  cases  of  consumption,  and  also  for  the  treatment  of  incipient  cases 
— all  these  are  needed.  Most  of  all  there  is  demanded  an  increase  in  the 
number  of  persons  who  are  willing  to  give  personal  attention  to  families  with 
whom  they  can  become  acquainted,  and  whom  through  a long  period  of  years,  if 
necessary,  they  can  befriend. 


THE  BENEFITS  AND  DISADVANTAGES  OF  WOMAN’S 
ENTRANCE  UPON  MAN’S  OCCUPATIONS. 

By  Mrs.  Henry  M.  Sanders,  Pres.  League  for  Political  Education,  New 

York. 

An  occupation  belongs  to  the  person  who  can  efficiently  work  at  it  without 
regard  to  sex.  Man’s  occupation  ? Who  made  them  his  ? True,  in  this  coun- 
try he  has  long  enjoyed  a monopoly,  due  to  custom  and  tradition  only,  and  not 
to  the  eternal  fitness  of  things.  It  is  not  many  decades  since  man’s  occupations 
were  supposed  to  embrace  every  kind  of  work  except  housekeeping,  nursing,  and 
perhaps  elementary  teaching.  Now  women  have  shown  that  they  can  do  as  good 
work  as  men,  in  law,  medicine,  high  schools  and  colleges,  literature,  painting, 
store-keeping,  journalism,  and  in  numerous  branches  of  manufacturing,  such  as 
printing,  bookbinding,  pen-making,  baking  and- agriculture.  No  occupation  can 
be  declared  to  be  man’s  and  man’s  alone,  until  women  through  many  generations 
have  had  free  opportunity  to  engage  in  it,  and  have  finally  failed  in  it.  The 
list  of  their  industrial  achievements  is  continually  growing. 

In  Chicago  there  are  three  women  who  intend  to  be  satisfied  with  their  new 
house.  They  have  not  only  planned  it  according  to  their  own  ideas  of  the  eter- 
nal fitness  of  a house,  but  are  building  it  themselves.  It  is  said  that  they  have 
gone  about  it  in  a masterful  way,  with  no  heed  to  the  crowds  of  spectators  who 
line  the  sidewalks  during  working  hours.  The  house  is  of  brick,  and  the  timbers 
for  the  framework  were  sawed  and  jointed  and  nailed  without  masculine  aid. 
The  daughters  act  as  hod-carriers,  and  supply  the  mother,  who  is  chief  brick- 
layer, with  mortar  and  brick. 

These  three  women  are  demonstrating  the  capacity  of  their  sex  for  several 
trades  which  custom  has  hitherto  precluded  them  from  attempting,  but  which 
should  be  freely  open  to  them.  If  a woman  wishes  to  be  a bricklayer,  carpenter, 
painter  or  plasterer,  she  should  have  the  same  facilities  as  her  brother  for  mas- 
tering the  craft,  under  the  same  sort  of  social  safeguards  for  health  and  just 
treatment  as  he  enjoys.  Work  of  all  kinds  must  be  done  by  the  person  of  superior 
fitness  for  it.  Occupations  ought  not  be  sexed.  We  used  to  hear  of  “ gentlemen’s  ” 
occupations,  well-paid  positions  reserved  for  a few  favored  families.  But 
Democracy  broke  down  the  barriers  of  those  fat  preserves  and  now,  “The  tools 
to  him  who  can  use  them,”  is  the  industrial  rule  for  men.  Why  should  it  not 
also  be  the  rule  for  woman  ? The  right  to  work,  the  grim  demand  urged  by  the 
unemployed  in  times  of  depression,  is  now  put  forward  in^imes  of  plenty  and  of 
want  alike,  by  women;  it  should  carry  the  right  to  wages  for  their  work.  Man 
has  too  often  admitted  woman’s  claim  to  an  occupation  only  so  long  as  it  -was 
unskilled  and  unpaid.  Work  she  has  ever  had,  and  domestic  drudgery,  but  fixed 
wages  for  her  work  have  hitherto  been  seldom  forthcoming.  However,  every 
census  shows  that  in  this  respect  conditions  are  improving  and  that  an  ever- 
multiplying  number  of  women  are  entering  upon  lucrative  occupations.  But  so 
far  in  manufactures  they  do  not  carry  on  exactly  the  same  processes  as  men.  We 
are  so  accustomed  to  see  men  and  women  artists,  teachers,  lawyers,  authors,  and 
doctors  doing  exactly  the  same  kind  of  work  that  we  are  apt  to  forget  that  pro- 


WOMA  N’S  0 COUP  A TIONS. 


15 


fessional  women  form  only  a tiny  fraction  of  the  working  women  of  the  country. 
In  the  cotton  and  woolen  mills,  the  clothing  factories,  the  boot  and  shoe  shops 
and  the  thousand  and  one  smaller  industries  women  are  numbered  by  the  ten 
thousand,  while  in  the  professions  they  are  numbered  by  units.  And  in  the 
shops  and  factories  at  present  they  usually  have  branches  of  work  separate  from 
the  men’s.  When  an  economist  recently  tried  to  verify  the  oft-quoted  statement 
that  women  receive  less  than  men  for  the  same  work,  he  found  it  very  difficult 
to  discover  cases  in  which  they  were  doing  exactly  the  same  things.  The  lighter 
processes,  requiring  deftness  rather  than  strength,  go  to  them;  the  heavier  pro- 
cesses to  men.  Of  that  natural  division,  at  present,  we  make  no  complaint. 

Woman’s  muscular  development  has  been  retarded  by  her  forced  adoption  of 
an  indoor  life,  her  abstention  from  exercise  and  her  exclusion  from  many  occu- 
pations. But  she  is  fast  removing  these  disabilities.  All  efficient  schools  for 
girls  provide  gymnastic  training;  young  women  bicycle  and  walk,  play  tennis, 
golf  and  baseball;  they  have  ceased  to  think  it  vulgar  for  them  to  be  healthy; 
they  are  even  adopting  costumes  suitable  to  their  play  and  exercise.  This 
natural  procedure  will  strengthen  their  bodies  in  a generation  or  two  and 
put  them  more  nearly  on  equal  terms  with  men. 

Nobody  can  set  limits  to  their  physical  improvement.  Intelligent  care  and 
attention  continued  through  the  centuries  will  make  them  stronger  and 
healthier  than  they  have  ever  yet  been,  and  prove  their  bodily  equality  with 
their  brothers. 

We  ask  only  for  a fair  field  and  no  favor,  confident  that,  with  equal  chances, 
women  will  not  in  the  long  run  prove  inferior.  Give  men  and  women  equal 
opportunities,  and  let  them  show  in  practice  what  work  they  are  adapted  to. 
Time  is  on  the  side  of  the  women;  the  constant  improvement  of  machinery 
reduces  the  area  of  industry  reserved  for  the  brute  strength,  which  long  cen- 
turies of  habit  have  fostered  in  the  men.  It  is  that  improvement  which  has 
favored  the  heavy  recruiting  in  the  army  of  women  workers  within  the  last  few 
decades.  And  the  process  will  certainly  continue.  No  power  can  check  Yankee 
inventiveness,  and  every  invention  is  woman’s  ally,  bringing  nearer  the  day  when 
muscular  energy  will  give  no  advantage  iu  industry. 

Under  those  circumstances,  what  are  the  chief  dangers  and  benefits  ? The 
benefits  are  plain.  Women  become  independent  beings,  their  economic  freedom 
is  a foundation  for  building  individual  character.  Being  no  longer  dependent 
upon  father,  brother,  lover  or  husband,  for  a livelihood,  they  may  develop  their 
being  in  obedience  to  their  own  conscience.  They  are  no  longer  merely  append- 
ages to  another.  Life  may  be  free;  love  may  be  unbiased  by  sordid  reasons.  Mar- 
riage becomes  a choice,  not  a necessity ; love  an  exchange,  not  a purchase  or  sale. 
Spinsterhood  and  starvation  cease  to  be  synonymous.  The  excess  of  girls  and 
women  over  boys  and  men,  a million  in  Great  Britain  alone,  and  equally  large  in 
the  “ cotton  towns  ” of  New  England  and  throughout,  the  Eastern  States,  are  no 
longer  miserable  drones,  unable  to  marry  under  a monogamous  law  and  yet  for- 
bidden to  live  by  honest  toil.  Women  become  more  self-respecting,  and  men’s 
ideas  about  them  more  dignified.  Both  recede  farther  from  the  notions  of  the 
harem.  Both  begin  to  see  new  principles  of  life-long  fellowship. 


16 


WOMAN'S  OCCUPATIONS. 


13ut  the  danger  sare  no  less  real.  They  are  the  dangers  which  menace  all  prop- 
ertyless workers  under  our  present  regime , especially  in  the  infancy  of  new  indus- 
tries. J ust  now,  women  are  in  about  the  same  position  with  regard  to  the  conditions 
of  the  employments  they  enter  as  men  occupied  in  the  middle  of  the  century. 
They  are  crowding  into  new  occupations  and  clamoring  to  the  employers  for 
work.  The  supply  of  their  labor,  particularly  in  the  unskilled  grades,  is  in  excess 
of  the  demands.  In  bargaining  as  to  wages  and  conditions  they  are  individually 
at  a hopeless  disadvantage;  with  the  result  that  their  wages  are  low,  their  hours 
long  and  their  work  onerous.  As  wage-earners,  they  must  therefore  use  pre- 
cisely the  same  means  of  self-protection  and  advancement  as  men  have  success- 
fully employed.  These  are  of  three  classes: 

1.  They  should  grasp  every  chance  to  improve  their  skill.  They  should  seize 
the  opportunities  to  increase  their  efficiency;  not  require  these  to  be  forced  upon 
them.  When  a woman  who  is  a clerk  has  the  chance  to  learn  stenography  and 
type-writing,  she  should  eagerly  take  it,  not  make  excuses  and  question  her  own 
ability  to  learn.  When  new  machines  and  new  processes  requiring  greater  skill 
and  practice  are  introduced,  women  must  show  a willingness  to  give  the  neces- 
sary steady  industry  for  mastering  them.  Trade  schools  and  technical  classes 
must  be  thrown  open  and  frequented  by  women  as  well  as  by  men.  The  hope  of 
marriage  must  not  be  allowed  to  dull  the  industrial  ambition  and  check  the 
industrial  effort.  So  long  as  women  are  content  in  the  sweating  dens,  the  shirt, 
confectionery,  india-rubber,  white-lead,  wall  jDaper,  garment,  boot  and  shoe,  and 
hosiery  factories  to  do  the  least  skilled  work,  and  to  do  it  as  a stop-gap  employ- 
ment, rather  than  a life’s  business,  so  long  they  will  be  ill  paid  and  held  indus- 
trially in  low  esteem. 

2.  For  skilled  and  unskilled  labor  alike  the  next  safeguard  is  essential — com- 
bination. Women  are  slower  than  men  to  recognize  that  “union  is  strength.” 
Leaders  amongst  them  constantly  deplore  the  difficulty  of  inducing  them  to 
stand  together  in  enforcing  their  reasonable  demands.  Consequently  they  some- 
times receive  wages  which  their  employer  knows  must  be  supplemented  by  the 
wages  of  sin.  Public  protest  and  individual  struggle  by  the  workwomen  are  of 
little  avail  in  these  conditions.  Consider  the  position  of  a woman  applying  for 
employment  in  shop  or  factory.  At  what  unfair  odds  she  stands.  Suppose  she 
asks  for  a living  wage  and  the  employer  offers  a sum  far  below.  If  she  refuse 
his  terms  to  her  it  means  starvation.  She  has  no  reserve  to  enable  her  to  hold 
out.  A week’s  idleness  means  a week’s  hunger;  possibly  illness;  probably  the 
loss  of  her  rented  rooms.  But  to  the  employer  her  refusal  will  cause  the  merest 
trifle  of  inconvenience,  even  if  he  can  get  nobody  else  at  his  own  terms.  He  will 
eat  no  morsel  the  less;  his  wife  and  children  will  still  fare  sumptuously;  at  the 
worst  he  will  simply  suffer  a slight  reduction  of  his  output,  an  infinitesimal 
diminution  of  profit.  He  can  wait  till  hunger  and  misery  have  brought  the  recal- 
citrant woman  to  surrender.  Under  these  circumstances  all  that  I said  previously 
about  freedom  is  a pitiful  farce  to  the  workwoman.  Opportunity  to  work  for 
less  than  substinence  wages  is  a mockery  of  freedom.  Beal  freedom  demands 
not  only  the  right  to  work,  but  the  right  to  an  ample  living  wage  for  the  work. 

Since  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  isolated  women  and  girls  cannot  exact  that 


WOMAN’S  OCCUPATIONS. 


17 


wage,  l^ke  tlie  men  they  must  form  unions,  insist  on  collective  bargaining,  and 
stand  united.  Though  the  employer  may  dispense  with  any  one  of  them,  he 
cannot  dispense  with  all.  Acting  as  a unit  they  will  put  themselves  more  nearly 
on  equal  terms  with  him.  At  critical  times  the  funds  they  have  accumulated  in 
the  union  will  enable  them  to  hold  out  for  fair  remuneration  and  their  whole 
status  will  be  improved.  That  woman  may  enter  industrial  life  upon  equal 
terms  with  men,  nothing  is  more  essential  than  that  they  shall  learn  like  the 
men,  to  combine.  Preferably  they  should  be  in  a union  along  with  the  men  who 
do  the  same  kind  of  work,  acting  on  the  assumption  that  they  will  claim  the 
same  advantages  and  render  the  same  services  as  their  male  colleagues. 

3.  Even  unions,  however,  cannot  enforce  many  of  the  conditions  essential  to 
the  health  of  the  worker  of  both  sexes,  and  the  well-being  of  society.  They 
cannot  pisist  successfully  that  all  work  places  shall  be  properly  ventilated,  that 
machinery  shall  be  safeguarded,  that  refuse  gases  shall  be  carried  away  by  fans, 
that  sanitary  accommodation  shall  be  provided  for  both  sexes,  and  that  meals 
shall  not  be  eaten  in  unhealthy  workrooms.  Such  matters  must  be  enforced  by 
legislative  enactment. 

Society  has  a special  interest  in  enforcing  them  for  women,  because  no  dia- 
lectic can  evade  the  fact  that  primarily  upon  the  health  of  the  women  depends 
the  stamina  of  the  next  generation.  Women  must  have  ready  access  to  industry 
for  the  sake  of  their  individual  freedom  and  development.  But  the  welfare  of 
society  must  also  be  considered  and  is,  indeed,  paramount.  In  the  interests  of 
the  community  we  must  prevent  the  sacrifice  of  women  in  unregulated  industry. 
Therein  lies  the  chief  danger  in  woman’s  entrance  upon  industrial  occupations. 
If  the  hideous  sacrifice  of  health  and  life  which  always  occurs  when  competitive 
industry  is  unchecked  were  permitted  for  a few  generations  the  whole  nation 
would  greatly  suffer.  Factory  and  workshop  laws  are,  therefore,  supremely 
necessary  in  regard  to  occupations  in  which  women  share.  Such  protective  legis- 
lation really  extends  the  freedom  of  the  individual  as  well  as  preserves  the  strength 
of  the  community.  Only  five  of  the  States  prevent  by  law  the  over-working  of 
adult  women.  In  England,  in  the  textile  trades,  where  tens  of  thousands  are 
employed,  they  have  been  saved  from  excessive  hours  for  over  thirty  years;  and 
in  Quebec  and  Ontario,  ten  hours  per  day,  or  sixty  hours  per  week,  is  now  the 
legal  maximum  for  adult  women. 

Similar  laws  should  be  passed  in  all  the  States  or  the  waste  of  woman  life  may 
be  terrible.  While  men  are  agitating  for  an  eight-hour  day,  it  surely  is  not  too 
much  to  ask  that  women  shall  not  work  more  than  ten  hours. 

Ontario’s  sanitary  regulations,  which  are  better  than  those  adopted  by  the 
States,  may  also  be  taken  as  a minimum  for  the  protection  of  the  health  of  the 
worker.  They  enact: 

1.  Every  factory  shall  be  kept  in  a cleanly  state  and  free  from  effluvia  arising 
from  any  source  whatever. 

2.  Factories  must  not  be  overcrowded. 

3.  Proper  ventilation  must  be  furnished. 

4.  Suitable  and  separate  closets  and  other  conveniences  must  be  provided  for 
both  sexes. 


18 


WOMAN'S  OCCUPATIONS . 


5.  Machinery  must  be  fenced  and  made  safe  for  the  worker. 

Laundries,  bakeshops  and  stores,  as  well  as  factories  and  workshops,  come 
under  the  rules.  These  regulations  should  be  enforced  by  a strong  staff  of 
factory  inspectors,  including  women.  Many  complaints  could  not  be  made  by 
women  to  men,  that  to  a woman  would  eagerly  be  uttered.  Inspectors  are  also 
more  highly  paid  than  the  rank  and  file,  an  additional  reason  for  insisting  that 
women  shall  be  amongst  them. 

Certain  industries  known  to  be  deadly  in  their  effects  upon  the  workers,  espe- 
cially young  girls,  must  be  rigorously  compelled  to  alter  their  methods  until 
they  are  quite  safe,  no  matter  what  additional  money  cost  is  involved. 
While  we  want  young  women  to  have  equal  opportunities  with  young  men  to 
learn  manufacturing  processes,  we  want  neither  to  be  deluded  through  ignor- 
ance, and  forced  by  economic  pressure,  into  situations  where  mutilation  and 
death  are  more  certain  than  on  the  battlefield. 

Mr.  Whiting  in  “No.  5 John  Street,”  describes  accurately  one  such  factory 
in  London,  when  he  says  “I  see  the  hundreds  of  hands  move  wearily  as  they 
pass  the  gate,  and  I find  that  all  but  the  quite  fresh  caught  bear  traces  of  this 
terrible  toil.  Theirs  is  an  industry  of  which  every  stage  of  every  operation  costs 
a fraction  of  a life.  They  have  all  sorts  of  ‘ funny  complaints.  ’ Their  eyes 
smart  and  water  as  they  toil  in  the  penetrating  fumes,  and  they  weep  with  the 
mechanical  facility  of  experienced  crocodiles.  They  see  double  at  times,  and  the 
vast  barn-like  room  swims  round  them  as  though  its  pots,  brushes,  garments, 
stuffs  and  furnace-fires  of  gas-jet  were  all  but  so  much  ruin  in  a whirlpool. 
Sometimes,  as  I learn  in  answer  to  inquiries,  they  ‘ ketch  it  in  the  lungs/  They 
invariably,  as  we  have  seen,  ‘ ketch  it  in  the  knob  ’ in  the  form  of  bilious  head- 
ache. The  moral  effects  are  even  more  distressing.  They  lose  their  temper  for 
nothing,  and  will  find  scope  and  verge  enough  for  quarrel  on  a pin’s  point. 
Some  have  been  known  to  go  ‘right  off  their  chump,’ and  to  be  exceedingly 
rude  to  the  overseers. 

“ Our  factory,  in  truth,  is  a great  spoiler  of  humanity,  and  especially  of  the 
weaker  vessel.  It  seems  to  have  the  same  destructive  appetite  for  the  latter  as 
some  monsters  of  fable.  Their  youth  and  freshness  is  but  raw  material,  we  turn 
them  out  as  hags  in  no  time— the  manufactured  article.  Alas  for  their  fleeting 
show  of  red  and  white.” 

“Ah,  the  pity  of  things  marred — blossoms  trampled  by  the  hoofs  of  swine, 
girlhood  cheated  of  its  day.  Some  of  them,  like  ‘Nance,’ bear  it  in  silence, 
feeling  that  it  is  the  price  of  keeping  ‘ respectable.  ’ Some  snatch  their  beauty 
so  to  speak,  out  of  the  fire,  and  hurry  with  it  to  market  for  what  it  may  still 
fetch  as  damaged  ware.  Others  co-operate  with  the  spoiler  in  his  rage  for 
results,  and  make  for  the  dram-shop,  as  though  they  cannot  keep  their  own 
nails  from  their  own  flesh.”  Such  a description  is  painfully  true  of  hundreds  of 
factories  in  Europe  and  America.  Since  it  is  a medical  fact  that  their  effect  is 
most  deadly  upon  the  women  workers,  they  must  be  controlled  out  of  existence, 
if  necessary,  rather  than  the  hideous  sacrifice  of  health  and  life  be  allowed  to 
continue. 

Whatever  our  opinion  upon  the  question  of  equal  suffrage,  we  are  bound  to 


WOMAN'S  OCCUPATIONS. 


19 


admit  that  the  wide  employment  of  women  industrially  will  of  necessity  be 
followed  by  their  political  enfranchisement.  Working  women  whose  conditions 
of  labor  are  intimately  affected  by  legislation  will  not  be  content  to  be  shut  out 
from  opportunities  to  influence  the  lawmakers.  Unenfranchised  persons  are  not 
interesting  to  politicians.  They  only  count  votes.  Therefore  women  who  work 
will  inevitably  press  to  success  the  demands  for  full  political  rights,  which  they 
will  go  on  to  use  for  further  amelioration  of  industrial  conditions. 

As  the  industrial  employment  of  women  extends,  the  collective  regulation 
and  control  of  industry  must  increase,  for  the  greater  the  proportion  of  the  popu- 
lation engaged  in  the  shop  and  factory,  the  greater  the  necessity  to  see  that 
conditions  are  just  and  progressive. 

The  thought  and  work  for  this  progress  should  command  the  zeal  of  all  citi- 
zens and  especially  of  Christian  people.  Improvement  is  slow,  only  because  so 
few  citizens  recognize  their  duty  to  the  community.  No  religious  work  can  be 
more  potent  for  good  than  the  moralization  of  industry ; no  sin  of  omission  is 
more  harmful  than  the  neglect  of  our  duty  to  the  State. 

With  patient  study  and  unwearying  ardor  the  community  must  mould  its 
arrangements,  until  to  every  woman  and  every  man  alike  there  is  guaranteed  an 
opportunity,  with  reasonable  exertion,  and  under  pleasant  conditions,  to  earn  a 
generous  livelihood. 


i 


I 


